You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
City & FFP | 2020/21 Accounts released | Revenues of £569.8m, £2.4m profit (p 2395)
- Thread starter Marvin
- Start date
Re: City & FFP (continued)
I think it comes down to whether the fallout can be contained to one year. IF its a £50m fine that Sheikh Mansour can pay out of his small change and it doesn't affect FFP calculations for this season. IF it just means when we're playing in the CL for one season with a limited squad and unlikely to make much progress. IF the restrictions on wages can be accommodated without too much disruption to the squad. IF its just a case of one difficult season before we're free from the clutches of FFP, then take it. Fighting it wouldn't be worth the uncertainty that a protracted dispute would cause.
However IF the way they've done the calculations on the Etihad deal mean that we will fail the next round of FFP calculations and face increased sanctions in 12 months time then we would have to fight it.
Ban-jani said:My life being a City fan has been about standing up to the more popular "bigger boys",
supporting City at school full of Rags being the example.
Having a crack at them bastards in a derby was as good as it got.
Now if City was to fight the lot of them, in the courts for blatant corruption
& favouritism, then it would make me immensely proud,
even if we lost.
I think it comes down to whether the fallout can be contained to one year. IF its a £50m fine that Sheikh Mansour can pay out of his small change and it doesn't affect FFP calculations for this season. IF it just means when we're playing in the CL for one season with a limited squad and unlikely to make much progress. IF the restrictions on wages can be accommodated without too much disruption to the squad. IF its just a case of one difficult season before we're free from the clutches of FFP, then take it. Fighting it wouldn't be worth the uncertainty that a protracted dispute would cause.
However IF the way they've done the calculations on the Etihad deal mean that we will fail the next round of FFP calculations and face increased sanctions in 12 months time then we would have to fight it.
oppa gangnam style
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 26 Oct 2012
- Messages
- 226
Re: City & FFP (continued)
Dont think there is any problem with Etihad deal. Nearly 99.9% sure in it...
Its the IP deals.
12m income in 11-12 for selling "know how" to Abu Dhabi.
Another 47m income for selling IP stuff, image rights to City Women Team, New York City etc.
thats 60m income in the two years that Uefa look at under FFP now.
I I would be Uefa I would really find it strange how this 60m income was instantly made just exactly in the two years when it really matters. What is know how for 12m pounds in Mansours 4th season at City he wants to buy for that amount?
I am pretty sure this and the other 47m is under huge scrutiny, and have a feeling they accepted not much of it as incomes and if its the case than we are pretty much over the 37m accepted loss even if we are able to deduct the biggest component that is the player wages from pre 2010.
And it also could have effected that we cant deduct this amount and then we are even further from the 37m limit...
PSG and City both saw a hole in their accounts.
PSG was less creative and came up with the idea of 200m/year Qatar deal they knew that laughable, I mean we would look back here when that news broke surely many City fans found that funny and strange and many said Uefa wont accept that, or if they accept that we wont have any problems with FFP.
Well our accountants saw a hole too in our numbers, we were more creative, but its still 60m income and basically Mansour trough his different companies did put this money in as incomes...
If I am Uefa again, I would have it would have to be extremely dangerous to accept these incomes like selling know how of the club under FFP, as next time some know how could be sold for 100m instead of 12m. And putting a price on "know how", good luck with that...
also huge danger for Uefa to say Qatar deal is not 200m but 100m is fair per year. They set the precedent with that, next year we can have a 100m€/year UAE deal and it cant be touched by Uefa, or if they do now thats crazy they accept it from Qatar but not from UAE, thats a huge political problem in a moment.
All in hindsight, we were creative, but got punished for it, maybe would have been better to go down the PSG way, come up with a funny sponsor everybody can laugh on, like 300m pounds/year, and if they accept only third of it, we are still 100m closer.
Eithad-deal seems small clearly based on all the infos we hear recently, and as only City have incomes like these IP stuff we gave a perfect chance to Uefa to dissmiss it as they wont have to dissmiss it at other clubs.
They probably laugh on us now, but there wont be lot lof laughing when Mansour sees this, and hopefully he does come up with an extra 100m€/year sponsor next year as if City is bought after all to promote UAE, now club needs some extra help in that.:)
He now sees how Uefa works, their real goals, we should fight ugly too.
If I would be Mansour first thing would after this summer is an increased in Etihad deal instantly and az UEA tourism deal.
We tried it a way trough IP stuff, but not other clubs do that so they can stop us that way without hurting anyone else. And also a good reason for them not to accept those incomes to make sure future rich owners dont do the same.
I think what is going to happen is we accept a deal from Uefa, a "settlement", probably some fine (over 3 years os its not a big hit...), and also squad restriction.
This would result us being even less strong in CL, but Pelle had some good results with lot weaker squads in CL than our restricted squad could be, so maybe a huge underdog role will pay off.:)
There could be some trouble with singing players, especially if they cant play in CL, there will some uncomfortable things, but its only for this summer.
I dont expect us to really fight big on this with Uefa. Now Mansour could see what is going on, we have to swallow this one, as we are way too alone to fight it, its not like half the clubs is for FFP other half is against it. Even the ones clearly against it are ready to accept is or ready to be in "shut up/wont say anything mode" about it...
While the clubs with the most lobby power clearly very much favour of it.
And also its far from guaranteed that going to CAS we would win it. Also not much guarantee for Uefa to win it there. For them and us its better t come to a settlement now.
I dont care about fighting for every club in the future to have there dreams come trough. These clubs hardly support us in any way now. All support we got was some journos ans some experts saying we shouldnt be banned or fined for what we did, and probably a journos doing it because they were told to...
We take a hit now with this settlement. All I hope Mansour will see right trough this, and will want to hurt the ones made this up, the big elite clubs and Uefa together. How to hurt them? Dominate them trough PL/CL for decades...
Beat them in their own game, what is "have the highest income"...
Dont think there is any problem with Etihad deal. Nearly 99.9% sure in it...
Its the IP deals.
12m income in 11-12 for selling "know how" to Abu Dhabi.
Another 47m income for selling IP stuff, image rights to City Women Team, New York City etc.
thats 60m income in the two years that Uefa look at under FFP now.
I I would be Uefa I would really find it strange how this 60m income was instantly made just exactly in the two years when it really matters. What is know how for 12m pounds in Mansours 4th season at City he wants to buy for that amount?
I am pretty sure this and the other 47m is under huge scrutiny, and have a feeling they accepted not much of it as incomes and if its the case than we are pretty much over the 37m accepted loss even if we are able to deduct the biggest component that is the player wages from pre 2010.
And it also could have effected that we cant deduct this amount and then we are even further from the 37m limit...
PSG and City both saw a hole in their accounts.
PSG was less creative and came up with the idea of 200m/year Qatar deal they knew that laughable, I mean we would look back here when that news broke surely many City fans found that funny and strange and many said Uefa wont accept that, or if they accept that we wont have any problems with FFP.
Well our accountants saw a hole too in our numbers, we were more creative, but its still 60m income and basically Mansour trough his different companies did put this money in as incomes...
If I am Uefa again, I would have it would have to be extremely dangerous to accept these incomes like selling know how of the club under FFP, as next time some know how could be sold for 100m instead of 12m. And putting a price on "know how", good luck with that...
also huge danger for Uefa to say Qatar deal is not 200m but 100m is fair per year. They set the precedent with that, next year we can have a 100m€/year UAE deal and it cant be touched by Uefa, or if they do now thats crazy they accept it from Qatar but not from UAE, thats a huge political problem in a moment.
All in hindsight, we were creative, but got punished for it, maybe would have been better to go down the PSG way, come up with a funny sponsor everybody can laugh on, like 300m pounds/year, and if they accept only third of it, we are still 100m closer.
Eithad-deal seems small clearly based on all the infos we hear recently, and as only City have incomes like these IP stuff we gave a perfect chance to Uefa to dissmiss it as they wont have to dissmiss it at other clubs.
They probably laugh on us now, but there wont be lot lof laughing when Mansour sees this, and hopefully he does come up with an extra 100m€/year sponsor next year as if City is bought after all to promote UAE, now club needs some extra help in that.:)
He now sees how Uefa works, their real goals, we should fight ugly too.
If I would be Mansour first thing would after this summer is an increased in Etihad deal instantly and az UEA tourism deal.
We tried it a way trough IP stuff, but not other clubs do that so they can stop us that way without hurting anyone else. And also a good reason for them not to accept those incomes to make sure future rich owners dont do the same.
I think what is going to happen is we accept a deal from Uefa, a "settlement", probably some fine (over 3 years os its not a big hit...), and also squad restriction.
This would result us being even less strong in CL, but Pelle had some good results with lot weaker squads in CL than our restricted squad could be, so maybe a huge underdog role will pay off.:)
There could be some trouble with singing players, especially if they cant play in CL, there will some uncomfortable things, but its only for this summer.
I dont expect us to really fight big on this with Uefa. Now Mansour could see what is going on, we have to swallow this one, as we are way too alone to fight it, its not like half the clubs is for FFP other half is against it. Even the ones clearly against it are ready to accept is or ready to be in "shut up/wont say anything mode" about it...
While the clubs with the most lobby power clearly very much favour of it.
And also its far from guaranteed that going to CAS we would win it. Also not much guarantee for Uefa to win it there. For them and us its better t come to a settlement now.
I dont care about fighting for every club in the future to have there dreams come trough. These clubs hardly support us in any way now. All support we got was some journos ans some experts saying we shouldnt be banned or fined for what we did, and probably a journos doing it because they were told to...
We take a hit now with this settlement. All I hope Mansour will see right trough this, and will want to hurt the ones made this up, the big elite clubs and Uefa together. How to hurt them? Dominate them trough PL/CL for decades...
Beat them in their own game, what is "have the highest income"...
Re: City & FFP (continued)
There is nothing wrong with selling assets such as IP in the years we need money to meet FFP. We manage our money in the way that suits us best.
Only question mark is market value.
Not sure if this would be something checked by our auditors or not, but I would expect that we would have had to have convinced UEFA that the price we got wasnt artificially inflated.
There is nothing wrong with selling assets such as IP in the years we need money to meet FFP. We manage our money in the way that suits us best.
Only question mark is market value.
Not sure if this would be something checked by our auditors or not, but I would expect that we would have had to have convinced UEFA that the price we got wasnt artificially inflated.
john@staustell
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 21 Dec 2009
- Messages
- 1,781
Re: City & FFP (continued)
At the end of the day mate FFP was supposed to stop clubs spending money they haven't got. But turned into a witch hunt against rich middle east owners, not American or Spanish debtors.
Whatever we'd done would have been wrong. 3 years down the line they'll say they'll only account for income from 47,000 seats because the rest dont count as they were added by the Sheik.
Joking, but you get the point, so it's no good arguing about details when they had it in for us anyway.
oppa gangnam style said:Dont think there is any problem with Etihad deal. Nearly 99.9% sure in it...
Its the IP deals.
12m income in 11-12 for selling "know how" to Abu Dhabi.
Another 47m income for selling IP stuff, image rights to City Women Team, New York City etc.
thats 60m income in the two years that Uefa look at under FFP now.
I I would be Uefa I would really find it strange how this 60m income was instantly made just exactly in the two years when it really matters. What is know how for 12m pounds in Mansours 4th season at City he wants to buy for that amount?
I am pretty sure this and the other 47m is under huge scrutiny, and have a feeling they accepted not much of it as incomes and if its the case than we are pretty much over the 37m accepted loss even if we are able to deduct the biggest component that is the player wages from pre 2010.
And it also could have effected that we cant deduct this amount and then we are even further from the 37m limit...
PSG and City both saw a hole in their accounts.
PSG was less creative and came up with the idea of 200m/year Qatar deal they knew that laughable, I mean we would look back here when that news broke surely many City fans found that funny and strange and many said Uefa wont accept that, or if they accept that we wont have any problems with FFP.
Well our accountants saw a hole too in our numbers, we were more creative, but its still 60m income and basically Mansour trough his different companies did put this money in as incomes...
If I am Uefa again, I would have it would have to be extremely dangerous to accept these incomes like selling know how of the club under FFP, as next time some know how could be sold for 100m instead of 12m. And putting a price on "know how", good luck with that...
also huge danger for Uefa to say Qatar deal is not 200m but 100m is fair per year. They set the precedent with that, next year we can have a 100m€/year UAE deal and it cant be touched by Uefa, or if they do now thats crazy they accept it from Qatar but not from UAE, thats a huge political problem in a moment.
All in hindsight, we were creative, but got punished for it, maybe would have been better to go down the PSG way, come up with a funny sponsor everybody can laugh on, like 300m pounds/year, and if they accept only third of it, we are still 100m closer.
Eithad-deal seems small clearly based on all the infos we hear recently, and as only City have incomes like these IP stuff we gave a perfect chance to Uefa to dissmiss it as they wont have to dissmiss it at other clubs.
They probably laugh on us now, but there wont be lot lof laughing when Mansour sees this, and hopefully he does come up with an extra 100m€/year sponsor next year as if City is bought after all to promote UAE, now club needs some extra help in that.:)
He now sees how Uefa works, their real goals, we should fight ugly too.
If I would be Mansour first thing would after this summer is an increased in Etihad deal instantly and az UEA tourism deal.
We tried it a way trough IP stuff, but not other clubs do that so they can stop us that way without hurting anyone else. And also a good reason for them not to accept those incomes to make sure future rich owners dont do the same.
I think what is going to happen is we accept a deal from Uefa, a "settlement", probably some fine (over 3 years os its not a big hit...), and also squad restriction.
This would result us being even less strong in CL, but Pelle had some good results with lot weaker squads in CL than our restricted squad could be, so maybe a huge underdog role will pay off.:)
There could be some trouble with singing players, especially if they cant play in CL, there will some uncomfortable things, but its only for this summer.
I dont expect us to really fight big on this with Uefa. Now Mansour could see what is going on, we have to swallow this one, as we are way too alone to fight it, its not like half the clubs is for FFP other half is against it. Even the ones clearly against it are ready to accept is or ready to be in "shut up/wont say anything mode" about it...
While the clubs with the most lobby power clearly very much favour of it.
And also its far from guaranteed that going to CAS we would win it. Also not much guarantee for Uefa to win it there. For them and us its better t come to a settlement now.
I dont care about fighting for every club in the future to have there dreams come trough. These clubs hardly support us in any way now. All support we got was some journos ans some experts saying we shouldnt be banned or fined for what we did, and probably a journos doing it because they were told to...
We take a hit now with this settlement. All I hope Mansour will see right trough this, and will want to hurt the ones made this up, the big elite clubs and Uefa together. How to hurt them? Dominate them trough PL/CL for decades...
Beat them in their own game, what is "have the highest income"...
At the end of the day mate FFP was supposed to stop clubs spending money they haven't got. But turned into a witch hunt against rich middle east owners, not American or Spanish debtors.
Whatever we'd done would have been wrong. 3 years down the line they'll say they'll only account for income from 47,000 seats because the rest dont count as they were added by the Sheik.
Joking, but you get the point, so it's no good arguing about details when they had it in for us anyway.
Chippy_boy
Well-Known Member
Re: City & FFP (continued)
Lots of people on here have said it must be the Etihad deal that's the problem, but no-one official has said that on either side, so it's pure speculation. And having thought about it (a lot), researched it fair bit, debated it, and been proved wrong... I am now totally convinced it is NOT the Etihad deal that's the problem. The value of the deal can only be questioned by UEFA if it is a related-party transaction. If it is not a related-party transaction, the deal value as shown in our accounts goes in full towards our break-even result and cannot be alterered.
The rules on what is/what is not a related party transaction are so clearly defined and understood, with no room for different interpretation, that it is imho impossible for our respected, independent auditors to have signed off on this not being an RTP, and then UEFA's respected, independent auditors to say that it is. There's not enough wriggle room in the accounting standards to allow that to happen. It doesn't matter whether in practice we have a bit of influence over Etihad, or whether they have any influence over us. The fact is the same IAS24 accounting standard that both us and UEFA are using, defines various criteria and terms and under those standards, it is not an RPT. So the value cannot be questioned by UEFA.
crazyadi said:What I want someone of moderate intelligence to explain to me is how PSG have a sponsorship deal, that has been halved, of about £100 million per year and UEFA consider that 'fair market value' for the ground alone, now PSG play in Ligue1 which has the 7th highest average attendance in Europe, their biggest game last couple of years was against Lyon and was watched on TV in 7 different countries. PSG themselves have an average gate around 10% lower than the blues.
City on the other hand have been told that their £35 million sponsorship for shirt, stadium and training ground is NOT fair market value. City play in the EPL which has the highest average attendance in Europe, their biggest games in 2012 was QPR match and was transmitted to over 200 countries worldwide and had a TV viewing audience of over 500million... the EPL having yearly viewing figures of over 4 BILLION.
If city have that much more exposure than PSG and we have average gates 10% higher than PSG then surely £35 million is grossly UNDERvalued.
EXPLAIN????
Lots of people on here have said it must be the Etihad deal that's the problem, but no-one official has said that on either side, so it's pure speculation. And having thought about it (a lot), researched it fair bit, debated it, and been proved wrong... I am now totally convinced it is NOT the Etihad deal that's the problem. The value of the deal can only be questioned by UEFA if it is a related-party transaction. If it is not a related-party transaction, the deal value as shown in our accounts goes in full towards our break-even result and cannot be alterered.
The rules on what is/what is not a related party transaction are so clearly defined and understood, with no room for different interpretation, that it is imho impossible for our respected, independent auditors to have signed off on this not being an RTP, and then UEFA's respected, independent auditors to say that it is. There's not enough wriggle room in the accounting standards to allow that to happen. It doesn't matter whether in practice we have a bit of influence over Etihad, or whether they have any influence over us. The fact is the same IAS24 accounting standard that both us and UEFA are using, defines various criteria and terms and under those standards, it is not an RPT. So the value cannot be questioned by UEFA.
EL APACHE TEVEZ
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 1 Sep 2008
- Messages
- 21,865
Re: City & FFP (continued)
Like it top one,great post.Ban-jani said:My life being a City fan has been about standing up to the more popular "bigger boys",
supporting City at school full of Rags being the example.
Having a crack at them bastards in a derby was as good as it got.
Now if City was to fight the lot of them, in the courts for blatant corruption
& favouritism, then it would make me immensely proud,
even if we lost.
mac
Well-Known Member
Re: City & FFP (continued)
Can we not get bought out by a mid west god fearing pervert looking inbred mall owner, who will then lumber us with debt.
Can we not get bought out by a mid west god fearing pervert looking inbred mall owner, who will then lumber us with debt.
gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
Re: City & FFP (continued)
In actual fact the Etihad deal is the problem imo, as it should have had bigger incremental steps, contingent upon ECL qualification built into it, creating a perfect circle of compliance.
It's not a Related Party, but even if it is, £35 million pa is materially undervalued for a club of our status, an assertion that UEFA seem to robustly concur with if the reports of them placing £100 million value on PSG's deal have any credence.
In actual fact the Etihad deal is the problem imo, as it should have had bigger incremental steps, contingent upon ECL qualification built into it, creating a perfect circle of compliance.
It's not a Related Party, but even if it is, £35 million pa is materially undervalued for a club of our status, an assertion that UEFA seem to robustly concur with if the reports of them placing £100 million value on PSG's deal have any credence.
squirtyflower
Well-Known Member
Re: City & FFP (continued)
It seems it is the Etihad deal and these 'respected' auditors are trying to pull a fast one at the behest of UEFA, hence City's angerChippy_boy said:crazyadi said:What I want someone of moderate intelligence to explain to me is how PSG have a sponsorship deal, that has been halved, of about £100 million per year and UEFA consider that 'fair market value' for the ground alone, now PSG play in Ligue1 which has the 7th highest average attendance in Europe, their biggest game last couple of years was against Lyon and was watched on TV in 7 different countries. PSG themselves have an average gate around 10% lower than the blues.
City on the other hand have been told that their £35 million sponsorship for shirt, stadium and training ground is NOT fair market value. City play in the EPL which has the highest average attendance in Europe, their biggest games in 2012 was QPR match and was transmitted to over 200 countries worldwide and had a TV viewing audience of over 500million... the EPL having yearly viewing figures of over 4 BILLION.
If city have that much more exposure than PSG and we have average gates 10% higher than PSG then surely £35 million is grossly UNDERvalued.
EXPLAIN????
Lots of people on here have said it must be the Etihad deal that's the problem, but no-one official has said that on either side, so it's pure speculation. And having thought about it (a lot), researched it fair bit, debated it, and been proved wrong... I am now totally convinced it is NOT the Etihad deal that's the problem. The value of the deal can only be questioned by UEFA if it is a related-party transaction. If it is not a related-party transaction, the deal value as shown in our accounts goes in full towards our break-even result and cannot be alterered.
The rules on what is/what is not a related party transaction are so clearly defined and understood, with no room for different interpretation, that it is imho impossible for our respected, independent auditors to have signed off on this not being an RTP, and then UEFA's respected, independent auditors to say that it is. There's not enough wriggle room in the accounting standards to allow that to happen. It doesn't matter whether in practice we have a bit of influence over Etihad, or whether they have any influence over us. The fact is the same IAS24 accounting standard that both us and UEFA are using, defines various criteria and terms and under those standards, it is not an RPT. So the value cannot be questioned by UEFA.